Ukraine and the Russian invasion, 2022-24

[editor]

Two alleged former Wagner commanders admit war crimes



CNN cannot independently verify their claims or identities in the videos but has obtained Russian penal documents showing they were released on presidential pardon in September and August of 2022.

Uldarov, who appears to have been drinking, details how he shot and killed a five- or six-year-old girl

Two Russians claiming to be former Wagner commanders admit killing children and civilians in Ukraine | CNN

Two Russian men who claim to be former Wagner Group commanders have told a human rights activist that they killed children and civilians during their time in Ukraine.

www.cnn.com

That is truly fucking sickening. Murdering 5 year old children.

 

[Spymaster]

They expanded NATO up to Russian borders. They wanted a fight.

Fucking hell, are you watching different news to everyone else mate?

 

[Rob Ray]

Even from an anti-Nato standpoint it's fairly crass to project the Westward turn of Eastern Europe as being entirely due to Nato activity. Nato no doubt lobbied (so did Russia), but the various countries ultimately decided one side had a better offer. I've not seen much evidence that this was enforced against unwilling general publics, for the most part.

The suggestion this was entirely down to perfidious manipulation by superpowers denies quite a lot of local agency. And beyond that, is rather pathetic as an excuse for Russia sending hundreds of thousands of people to their deaths in an attempt to annex a rebellious region full of people who evidently don't want to be Russian

There's lots of arguments against Nato, but "they'd have been better off in Putin's sphere of influence" doesn't strike me as a good one.

 

[Artaxerxes]

Fucking hell, are you watching different news to everyone else mate?

He’s already explained he uses logic to judge and watches both RT and BBC to get the truth rather than buying the propaganda the rest of us do.

 

[Pickman's model]

They expanded NATO up to Russian borders. They wanted a fight.

you're right, as nato was founded pretty clearly as an anti-soviet alliance, preceding the creation of the warsaw pact. the world would have been a much safer place if it had been disbanded in the 1990s following the collapse of its raison d'etre. as we all know the best way to destroy an enemy is to turn them into a friend, absent the disbanding of nato russia should have been invited to join. the history of the relationship between russia and its erstwhile opponents over past 30 years has really been one of failure, failure to draw russia in to structures which could have prevented the sort of mess we see today. for me, one of the reasons for this conflict is the united states' decision, referred to earlier in the thread, to create a strategic partnership with ukraine in the autumn of 2021 Joint Statement on the U.S.-Ukraine Strategic Partnership | The White House. that may have been a proximate cause of the war. the existence of nato, its use in afghanistan for 20 years or more, the nato intervention in bosnia-herzogovina back in the 90s, the nato campaign against the ghadaffi regime - it's not like nato was the defensive alliance it was often represented to be.

but while the western powers may have played some part in getting us where we are, so too did russia. there've been grave concerns for many years about russian expansionism and what it might mean for countries like the baltic states, not least in military circles - see eg Dashboard. the trajectory of the putin / medvedev regimes over the past couple of decades hasn't been towards peaceful coexistence - ideas such as dugin's or zhironovsky's about a greater russia didn't help either.

 

[The39thStep]

you're right, as nato was founded pretty clearly as an anti-soviet alliance, preceding the creation of the warsaw pact. the world would have been a much safer place if it had been disbanded in the 1990s following the collapse of its raison d'etre. as we all know the best way to destroy an enemy is to turn them into a friend, absent the disbanding of nato russia should have been invited to join. the history of the relationship between russia and its erstwhile opponents over past 30 years has really been one of failure, failure to draw russia in to structures which could have prevented the sort of mess we see today. for me, one of the reasons for this conflict is the united states' decision, referred to earlier in the thread, to create a strategic partnership with ukraine in the autumn of 2021 Joint Statement on the U.S.-Ukraine Strategic Partnership | The White House. that may have been a proximate cause of the war. the existence of nato, its use in afghanistan for 20 years or more, the nato intervention in bosnia-herzogovina back in the 90s, the nato campaign against the ghadaffi regime - it's not like nato was the defensive alliance it was often represented to be.

but while the western powers may have played some part in getting us where we are, so to did russia. there've been grave concerns for many years about russian expansionism and what it might mean for countries like the baltic states, not least in military circles - see eg Dashboard. the trajectory of the putin / medvedev regimes over the past couple of decades hasn't been towards peaceful coexistence - ideas such as dugin's or zhironovsky's about a greater russia didn't help either.

NATO's history wouldn't be complete without the mention of Operation Gladio and the funds that both the UK and US poured in to fight Communist Parties at elections in Europe.

 

[Pickman's model]

NATO's history wouldn't be complete without the mention of Operation Gladio and the funds that both the UK and US poured in to fight Communist Parties at elections in Europe.

very true, and thank you for raising that. as ever libcom's library very useful here and they've a book about gladio available for download https://files.libcom.org/files/NATOs_secret_armies.pdf

 

[belboid]

Every other case resulted in an unstable country, and while countries flipping their regimes/allegiances may play out well for your opinions on the world stage, it's usually pretty fucking horrifying for the people that live there. Look at Chile in the news right now digging up their past.

Chile? You are using Chile as an example of why the USA should be the worlds superpower? A regime which received hardly any support from the USSR (it had found Cuba too expensive) but which did receive an awful lot of funding to overthrow it from, uhhh, the USA.

So your argument as 'the USA should be the worlds superpower, or they'll destroy you.' Which is an excellent explanation of why much of the world has no interest in supporting US bullshit. And that was before Trump got in, what a wonderful copper he'd make.

The rest of your post was equally ignorant nonsense.

 

[Chz]

Chile? You are using Chile as an example of why the USA should be the worlds superpower? A regime which received hardly any support from the USSR (it had found Cuba too expensive) but which did receive an awful lot of funding to overthrow it from, uhhh, the USA.

So your argument as 'the USA should be the worlds superpower, or they'll destroy you.' Which is an excellent explanation of why much of the world has no interest in supporting US bullshit. And that was before Trump got in, what a wonderful copper he'd make.

The rest of your post was equally ignorant nonsense

You think that because you've completely misread it.
Chile was an example of a country with a paid-for revolution. It doesn't matter if it's Soviet-paid or American-paid, the end result is the same and that's the sort of thing you get. Or are you going to pretend that the Cuban administration (again, for example) didn't jail, disappear, and straight up murder people once it came to power? I did not argue in favour of one side or the other, I said that having one power rather than several is beneficial to the stability of smaller countries. It so happens that American-lead is what we've got, and that's better than them and Sovs at each other's necks trying to sway half the countries in the world to one side or the other.

 

[Pickman's model]

You think that because you've completely misread it, you ignorant buffoon.
Chile was an example of a country with a paid-for revolution. It doesn't matter if it's Soviet-paid or American-paid, the end result is the same and that's the sort of thing you get. Or are you going to pretend that the Cuban administration (again, for example) didn't jail, disappear, and straight up murder people once it came to power? I did not argue in favour of one side or the other, I said that having one power rather than several is beneficial to the stability of smaller countries.

no it isn't. have we so swiftly forgotten gwb's you're either with us or against us? there's stability and stability and countries which have been er stabilised by the united states have often not really enjoyed the experience

 

[existentialist]

Yeah well we don’t agree. I think it’s worse than dogshit for people who posed as being left wing for years getting behind the US, NATO and the EU in this conflict.

Ahhh... It all makes sense now.

 

[ouirdeaux]

The arguments against opposing the invasion of Ukraine could have been made against entering the Second World War when Germany and the USSR invaded Poland. Germany had been driven to humiliation by the Treaty of Versailles, and there were all sorts of unsavoury elements in the Polish government of the time. And of course the UK didn't have an unblemished history. So would ignoring it all have been the right thing?

 

[belboid]

You think that because you've completely misread it.
Chile was an example of a country with a paid-for revolution. It doesn't matter if it's Soviet-paid or American-paid, the end result is the same and that's the sort of thing you get. Or are you going to pretend that the Cuban administration (again, for example) didn't jail, disappear, and straight up murder people once it came to power? I did not argue in favour of one side or the other, I said that having one power rather than several is beneficial to the stability of smaller countries. It so happens that American-lead is what we've got, and that's better than them and Sovs at each other's necks trying to sway half the countries in the world to one side or the other.

'Paid for revolution' wtf are you on about? You're all over the fucking shop - which is undoubtedly why you re immediately trying to change the subject. Why not extend your argument? If it's much better to have just one power rather than several arguing, maybe you should go live in Russia, Putin is very keen on that line of argument internally.

 

[The39thStep]

Ahhh... It all makes sense now.

Don't think he is talking about you tbh

 

[xenon]

Russia's ability to attack other countries has historically been limited by its geography, largely land locked, few ports which can be used all year round, vast distances internally, often crap weather.

Post WW2 it's main effort was to maintain the new status quo, i.e new boundaries, Warsaw Pact. Still shite regime, but not really expansionist.

Post USSR Putin's Russia wants to recreate that old status quo.

Not really expansionist? Bollocks. Yeah, they had reasons but all nations have "reasons" for wanting to annex neighbouring teratry.

This is all a tedious aside anyway.

 

[Chz]

'Paid for revolution' wtf are you on about? You're all over the fucking shop - which is undoubtedly why you re immediately trying to change the subject. Why not extend your argument? If it's much better to have just one power rather than several arguing, maybe you should go live in Russia, Putin is very keen on that line of argument internally.

I... don't even understand you. Sorry. What is the issue? That you think it's incorrect that the West footed the bill for the Pinochet coup?
I admit we're getting way off topic with this stuff though, and I apologise for fuelling it.

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

Not really expansionist? Bollocks. Yeah, they had reasons but all nations have "reasons" for wanting to annex neighbouring teratry.

This is all a tedious aside anyway.

Sorry if you find me tedious. I'm not justifying anything that the Russian state in its varying forms has done. All imperialisms are crap. All i'm saying is that post WW2 Russia's sphere of influence on European territory did not expand and there was no serious attempt to make it do so. If anything it began to contract. But they wanted the new status quo (I was never a fan myself) and Putin wants it back.

 

[Aladdin]

Most of the world don’t support the US.

Most of the world are not democracies. Let's face it...all the countries enjoying Western life as we know it??? We are the odd ones out.

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

Not really expansionist? Bollocks. Yeah, they had reasons but all nations have "reasons" for wanting to annex neighbouring teratry.

This is all a tedious aside anyway.

Another tedious aside. Happy Birthday.

 

[maomao]

Most of the world are not democracies. Let's face it...all the countries enjoying Western life as we know it??? We are the odd ones out.

Most countries in the world are democracies (often flawed ones) and most people in the world live in a democracy.

 

[Yossarian]

You can but when your only contribution to the discussion is “wow America is ramping up this war” or “god Zelensky is escalating this he should just negotiate” or “look at what the Ukrainians are up to” without any comment on the many many Russian crimes or antics it starts to look a bit iffy

In the US, of course, that's the position of the far right, including Donald Trump, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Topper Catson Tucker Carlson, etc.

 

[Rob Ray]

Most countries in the world are democracies (often flawed ones) and most people in the world live in a democracy.

I suspect that ceases to be true if "flawed democracies" like China (ie. actually oligarchies or dictatorships) are removed from that roster. The Economist is an ideological rag but has the number considerably in favour of regimes, even when quietly looking the other way on the reality of what's happening in India, Hungary etc.

 

[Aladdin]

Most countries in the world are democracies (often flawed ones) and most people in the world live in a democracy.

True democracy ... mixed democracy with autocracy... hybrid regimes...and authoritarian regimes.

You might think there'd be more green.

 

[maomao]

View attachment 371130

True democracy ... mixed democracy with autocracy... hybrid regimes...and authoritarian regimes.

You might think there'd be more green.

The UK is a hybrid regime as long as we have a hereditary head of state.

 

[belboid]

The UK is a hybrid regime as long as we have a hereditary head of state.

not to mention the unelected second chamber

 

[A380]

They expanded NATO up to Russian borders. They wanted a fight.

Fuck sake. i normally type "Nato's fault' as a joke response...

 

[The39thStep]

Most of the world are not democracies. Let's face it...all the countries enjoying Western life as we know it??? We are the odd ones out.

what is 'Western life as we know it' ? When did it begin?

 

[Spandex]

for me, one of the reasons for this conflict is the united states' decision, referred to earlier in the thread, to create a strategic partnership with ukraine in the autumn of 2021 Joint Statement on the U.S.-Ukraine Strategic Partnership | The White House. that may have been a proximate cause of the war.

I agree with the bulk of your post, but I'm not convinced by the quoted bit.

The US and Ukraine have had a Strategic Partnership since 2008. Obviously it was a bit dated after the to-do over Donbass and Crimea in 2014, and the 2022 Statement on the Strategic Partnership was a lot stronger on Russia and Ukrainian territorial integrity. But there's a bit of chicken and egg about whether it was a cause of the invasion or a response to a Russian build up on the border with Ukraine.

The Statement is dated 1/09/22. According to this timeline about the run up to the invasion the first US side eye at Russia's intentions in Ukraine was in April 22, although they weren't taken seriously at first and it was hoped the US-Russia summit in Genneva on 16/06/22 would've calmed things down. That was followed by Putin ramping up his rhetoric on Ukraine and growing concern by US intelligence agencies over the summer.

So the 2022 Statement on the Strategic Partnership was agreed against growing concern that Russia was planning to invade Ukraine. By the time it was released in September the US seems to have thought it likely, and by the time the Charter was published in November the US seems to have been convinced that the invasion was in preparation.

Was it a US attempt to warn off Russia that failed or went wrong? Did Russia, at an early stage, see the reopening of discussions around the US-Ukraine Strategic Partnership as a reason to invade Ukraine, even after Putin had been going on about the historical unity of Russians and Ukrainians at least since 2021? Or was it just part of the ballet of international doings in build up to the invasion that has no real bearing on whether the invasion happened or not?

 

[Spandex]

The Statement is dated 1/09/22

I just realised the Statement is 2021, not 2022. I was thinking of the Charter in November 2022.

Apologies

 

[The39thStep]

Sorry if you find me tedious. I'm not justifying anything that the Russian state in its varying forms has done. All imperialisms are crap. All i'm saying is that post WW2 Russia's sphere of influence on European territory did not expand and there was no serious attempt to make it do so. If anything it began to contract. But they wanted the new status quo (I was never a fan myself) and Putin wants it back.

How does that fit in with the idea NATO was formed in 1949 to stop Russian aggression?